We should kick out the tenants who could afford to rent or buy elsewhere.
The other day, I went to visit one of my tenants, a frequent complainer. The door was opened by a woman who informed me that the tenant was away on holiday and that she was the servant.

As I tried to look for the defects the tenant continually moaned about, I saw good-quality wooden flooring, furniture several times more expensive than my own Ikea stuff and very expensive-looking rugs. As far as I knew,though, this tenant had been on housing benefit for some time.

I went away thinking of how I had been struggling to find a place to move Amina, the Somali single parent with four very young children overcrowded in a two-bedroom flat; or Halima, who lives on the third floor of a block without lifts with a child who has cerebral palsy; or Mustapha, who lovingly cares for his quadriplegic son and needs a level-access ground-floor flat.

What kind of people are we housing, or continuing to house? Who are these people who get to the front of the queue through council nominations or are able to push themselves forward through choice-based lettings? And why is that we have to continue to house those who could easily afford to rent or buy in the private market? While we are struggling with a shortage of homes for transfers or homeless applicants, we continue to accommodate people who have more money than we who work in social housing do.

If we are unable to buy land or properties at affordable prices, we need to find ways of freeing our scarce resources. People who have robust housing association flats and houses in central London will not make any effort to move.

A tiny minority have bought property and quietly let it; others move but sublet their own property.

The only solution is to end automatic security of tenure. We need to do the same as in many other countries, where social housing is meant only for the poor and needy, not for anybody who puts his or her name on a waiting list irrespective of income or their ability to afford a mortgage or private rent.

One solution would be to issue tenancies initially for a period of three years, say, only renewable annually for a maximum of seven years. The tenancy would be renewed at the end of three years if the tenant was still in need of housing and unable to afford to buy or rent in the private sector. At the end of their tenure, however determined, the tenant would have to move and free up the property for others in need.

Some housing professionals will shout me down for this suggestion, but what exactly is wrong with means-testing someone who wants to occupy subsidised housing indefinitely?

We need to get tenants thinking about how they can look after themselves and look after their own property. We get called out to do the most minor repairs, things that a tenant or a local handyman could fix in a few seconds, but for which we have to pay call-out charges and bills amounting to at least a week's rent.

I have always believed in encouraging and promoting self-help and we are not doing anyone a favour by breeding a dependency culture – except of course those "professionals" who make a very good living out of it at the expense of the taxpayer or those working people who pay rents out of their own pockets.

Security of tenure for life is an outdated concept. Questioning the need for it should not be taboo. I house very few people each year; I could help a lot more overcrowded or homeless people if only I could move out those no longer in need.